Fuck corporate whitewashing.

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 25 March 2011 at 17:52.
The [/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuspectedReplicant&offset=20110325175206&lqt_mustshow=1706 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.

Your last edit to Monsanto gave me an erection. Keep going!

    P-Foster (talk)16:06, 25 March 2011

    Thanks for the mental image...

    In case there was confusion, that edit summary was aimed at our resident industry apologist, not you.

      SuspectedReplicant retire me16:07, 25 March 2011

      I have no problem with GMOs, but I do have a problem with Monsanto.

        ТyTalk.16:08, 25 March 2011

        I've got minor concerns about GMOs, big problems with Monsanto, but that's not really the issue here. Tweenk has single-handedly turned the site's position on nuclear power around 180° and is now doing the same on Monsanto. It's getting ridiculous.

          SuspectedReplicant retire me16:15, 25 March 2011

          I know, but he is occasionally useful, and I won't ban/desysop someone for ideological reasons. I'd say Loya Jirga or vote, but those never seem to accomplish anything, so let's do what we can to debate and revert.

            ТyTalk.16:18, 25 March 2011

            He makes ListerX look like Noam Chomsky. I wanna go on the record and say no ban/desysop/LJ/vote is required. Just call him on all his nonsense and revert w/better evidence.

              P-Foster (talk)16:21, 25 March 2011

              Oh I'm not calling for ban/desysop; a good blow to the head with a two-by-four would get my vote. I'm pissed off with the way he almost never provides sources and when he does they're all from the institution he's supporting. Any contradictory sources are just called wrong with no evidence.

                SuspectedReplicant retire me16:24, 25 March 2011
                 
                 

                I don't think there's been a 180 degree spin. RW shouldn't have a POV to spin around like that. You want to fight it on the basis of actual evidence and reason, not claiming that someone is forcing a particular POV.

                  Scarlet A.pngd hominem16:30, 25 March 2011

                  I'm going to have to disagree. He created Nuclear paranoia and that bloody awful Essay:Arguments against nuclear power (as an article, of course); unilaterally changed around the Environmentalism page, despite being reverted by more than one editor, expanded the Radioactivity and Depleted uranium pages with utterly one-sided views and done similar things on other pages. Then we have the Genetic modification and Monsanto pages also being filled up with yet more unsourced/bias-sourced apologetics. He's a one-man wrecking team.

                    SuspectedReplicant retire me16:41, 25 March 2011

                    Then go forth and refute.

                      Scarlet A.pngd hominem17:35, 25 March 2011

                      I've been doing that on the talk pages instead of unilaterally switching back.

                        SuspectedReplicant retire me17:52, 25 March 2011
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         

                        I knew who it was aimed at. Unlike this raging erection.

                          P-Foster (talk)16:09, 25 March 2011
                           
                           
                          Personal tools
                          Namespaces

                          Variants
                          Actions
                          Navigation
                          Community
                          Tools
                          support